From CNN: Supremes just ruled that CA can enforce restrictions on religious gatherings.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

Roberts joined with the liberals for the majority.

From WaPo:

BREAKING: Supreme Court, in rare late-night ruling, says California may enforce certain restrictions on religious gatherings

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the court’s liberal justices in response to an emergency petition brought by a church in California, which had argued the state’s pandemic-related restrictions violated constitutional protections for places of worship.

Roberts wrote that state officials such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom had leeway to impose restrictions to prevent the spread of coronavirus, and had not singled out places of worship for unfair treatment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-considers-churches-demands-that-states-lift-pandemic-restrictions/2020/05/29/af07b918-a1b2-11ea-81bb-c2f70f01034b_story.html

[still_one]

1. 5-4. The SC if nothing else should be reason enough for voting

[BigmanPigman]

2. I just saw that on CNN and read it in the NY Times. GOOD!

This is a health issue!!! Pray at home and stay at home.

[Jamastiene]

3. Considering it is SCOTUS,

does that mean Cooper can change the order back to not allowing large gatherings in churches? Covidiots sued him and he changed it to exempt all churches from the order.

[BGBD]

4. Right now

the court is to the right, but only as far as Roberts, which is pretty moderate as far as conservatives go. If Trump is reelected he will get to replace RBG and the court will move and Roberts will be left of center on the court. That's not a court that is ever going to rule in the way anyone who claims to be liberal would like.

[Warpy]

5. That's unexpected

but preachers are still going to defy it, they need those butts in the pews as the collection plate goes by.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Exposes The Agenda For All To See

Roberts, very reasonably, says no infringement because it applies to far more things than houses of worship.
The other 4 drones said it violated 1A rights.
So, it doesn't single out religion, but it violated rights anyway?
No, those 4 are just political hacks pandering to the religiously deluded.

[malaise]

7. This is a very good decision

Rec

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-05-29/supreme-court-california-church-crowds-pandemic
<snip>
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to California’s limits on large church gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic, dismissing an appeal brought by a San Diego-area church that argued state rules infringed on its religious freedom.
The justices by 5-4 vote said California could enforce its rules, at least for now. Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in upholding the state’s rules.

“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts ‘the safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the states ‘to guard and protect,’” Roberts wrote.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

[struggle4progress]

8. "Why don't I get a pass if my religion calls for killing large numbers of innocent people?"